So I go and pick up a hightimes ....

[guy07]

Never done it nor really even wanted to, but its completely outrageous that it's illegal. More people should be outraged about it. It's a civil liberties issue, not just a "i wanna get stooooooned maaaaaaan" issue.

Word.
Given that many people have declared weed less harmful then many everyday drugs that we use, why aren't we allowed to use it?
We should be able to do with our bodies as we please, shouldn't we?

[OhmGautama]

Never done it nor really even wanted to, but its completely outrageous that it's illegal. More people should be outraged about it. It's a civil liberties issue, not just a "i wanna get stooooooned maaaaaaan" issue.

Word.
Given that many people have declared weed less harmful then many everyday drugs that we use, why aren't we allowed to use it?
We should be able to do with our bodies as we please, shouldn't we?

You bring up an interesting question guy07. For example, motorcycle helmet laws, its illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet in some areas. But why? It would really only affect you in a crash. But since helmets save lives (at least heads) in crashes, the government would probably argue it benefits society more to keep you protected during crashes as taxpayers pay more for more serious injuries. I wont try to argue that this is the most sound or strong argument, but as Zarxrax points out, its a question of civil liberties. Where and when does the government have the right to interfere with the lives of citizens?

As far as my view on the legalization of marijuana, I haven't seen any evidence of serious detrimental effects from its use (but of course, more research into its short and long term effects would be beneficial in making a decision regarding legalization), so I have no strong stance against the legalization of it.

[Kariudo]

We should be able to do with our bodies as we please, shouldn't we?

no, we shouldn't.

At what point does the rights of those around you become more important than your own rights?
Why should other people have to suffer for your decision?

If I wanted to take meth, should I legally be able to despite the fact that it can make me super-violent and become a serious danger to the lives of those around me?
Now I realize that meth is waaaay different from pot, but it does show (in my mind) the need to limit what people can do to themselves.

It's easy for people to agree that there should be a line
It's very hard for people to agree on where that line should be

[JaddziaDax]

pot smokers don't get violent though... they get lazy and hungry...

thats just what we need in society lazy and hungry people O:

of course it being illegal isn't going to stop people who want it

[Krisqo]

I seriously wonder how you can smoke that shit. Half the people in my high school smoked dope and the scent sent my stomach into a downspin.

[BasharOfTheAges]

Where and when does the government have the right to interfere with the lives of citizens?

It's mostly "concerned parent" / teacher / law enforcement groups that play the "think of the children" card, but for most things like recreational drug use, helmet laws, fireworks, etc. a rather pragmatic stance of "when the prospect of dealing with the consequences hurts the coffers" is followed. When states that tend to provide a lot of services to a large number of needy/poor people in a state, their government tends to treat all the citizens like they're children that don't know how to behave themselves. Now, obviously they have something there - there's enough poor in the state to show they can't handle money , but expanding "protection" laws are more of a means to (at least in legislators' minds) stem the tide of "shit our constitutes are going to tell us we need to pay for" problems down the road. I would go so far as to say that we have empowered our legislators to make social decisions for us by asking them to provide so many services to us and suing them when we think they didn't do enough to protect us.

tl;dr? When states are no longer held accountable for meeting the needs of their inhabitants and enough people are actually self sufficient we can expect lawmakers to lay the fuck off - no sooner.

[Mithroch]

I seriously wonder how you can smoke that shit.

With a bong... or papers. You need a fire source.

Of course the vaporizers are the trend. No smoke. Less waste.

[requiett]

I won't argue any of that beneficial shit on behalf of marijuana you always hear from stoners. I will argue that it's dangerous to have it labeled as a Schedule I substance in the same category as heroin and meth. Kids try marijuana and think they've been lied to, so they have less or no concern about trying something far more dangerous.

[guy07]

pot smokers don't get violent though... they get lazy and hungry...

thats just what we need in society lazy and hungry people O:

of course it being illegal isn't going to stop people who want it

It's not like pot smokers are high ALL the time. Just MOST of the time, lol.

But you make a good point, even if it's illegal, we we feel we should be allowed to chances are we will. You could argue the whole concerned parent point of view, but thats where you actually being able to be a fucking parent comes into play. If you tell a kid you'll beat his ass if he smokes weed, he won't. Well, not until he's older anyways.

Personally, if it ever is legalized I would actually recommend that there be designated smoking areas. Like bars, but for weed. Or at home. But other then that zero tolerance. I know first hand what happens when a bunch of people go get stoned in a park and are really bored ... we always find a way to entertain ourselves.

@krisq: Must have been skunk weed. Stuff smells so bad. There's more strains of weed then you can count, they all have different smells, tastes and effects on ur brain.

[8bit_samurai]

Actually I don't really like the smell as well and I know they don't sell that stuff up here. I don't really give a damn just as long as it isn't smoked around me. But it is, however, fun to mess around with those that are high.